Infrastructure Development

<html><body>
Many factors play a part in growth property markets, but the biggest single element is infrastructure.
Good places to invest are places with excellent infrastructure, including the nuts-and-bolts elements such as schools, shops and public transport.
And the markets most likely to grow in future are those where there’s big spending on new infrastructure - with transport facilities the most influential (although medical and educational infrastructure are also big).
Sydney’s recent price boom was created by three key factors - the strongest economy in the nation, pent-up demand after a decade of under-performance, and big, big spending on infrastructure, especially road and rail links.
Sydney’s economy and its property markets turned around when there was a change of state government in 2011.
After more than a decade of stagnation, with little spent on infrastructure, improved governance caused an upturn in the economy and big spending on new projects. Currently there are facilities worth tens of billions of dollars being built, including massive road and rail ventures.
Projects like these create economic activity and jobs, as well as improving accessibility.
One of the factors underpinning the revival in the Tasmanian economy and the rise of the Hobart property market has been a significant rise in spending on infrastructure.
Similar to the NSW experience, the turnaround in Tasmania has evolved from a change in state government, with an emphasis on infrastructure improvements and encouragement of construction projects.
Prices and rents have grown in Hobart on the back of these changes and the Tasmanian capital is expected to be a price growth leader among the capital cities in 2017, boosted by its low prices, tight vacancies and relatively high rental yields.
Against that background it’s good news that road infrastructure, according to a new study, is forecast to be the No.1 growth industry sector in Australia this year.
Research firm IBISWorld sees road infrastructure building as the fastest-growing industry this year, with revenue growth tipped to rise 27.2% to a tick over $20 billion in FY2017 - ahead of the sugar manufacturing and oil/gas extraction sectors.
Several giant transport infrastructure projects are currently driving accelerated expansion in the road &amp; bridge construction industry. “Much of the current robust growth has been due to the early construction phases of the NorthConnex M1 to M2 link and WestConnex projects in Sydney,” it says. “These private-public funded projects are set to dominate the road construction landscape for several years.”
Meanwhile, a report from commercial real estate consultancy Savills says that Australian cities which provide the most efficient transport infrastructure, on top of essential social infrastructure, will place themselves in the best position to deliver sound economic performance.
They will become the preferred home for the best and most skilled workers and the hi-tech industries that employ them over the next decade.
“And those cities will be at the centre of property development and investment opportunities as they grow to accommodate vastly increased populations”, it says.
Savills Australian Head of Research, Tony Crabb, says many academic studies have pointed to the preference among skilled workers for ‘liveability’ over financial rewards including a 2016 Savills UK study What Workers Want, which found workers wanted their life contained within a half-hour radius.
“We expect skilled or knowledge workers to be doubly attracted to places where they can achieve both a high degree of liveability and financial rewards, but transport infrastructure is the critical element with work, rest and play accessible in 30 minutes by car, public transport, walking, or cycling, the key determinant,” he says.
“Major transport infrastructure provides the backbone of investment opportunities and it is generally around such infrastructure that industries agglomerate, but light rail, tram, bus, cycling and street networks are equally important in delivering liveability.”
Other facilities such as medical and educational infrastructure are also vitally important.
Crabb says that while Melbourne and Sydney are likely to attract a growing number of skilled workers with population forecasts of up to 10 million by 2050, two other cities - Adelaide and Perth – were nominated (along with Melbourne) by the London based Economist Intelligence Unit  among the world’s Top 10 most liveable.
Melbourne ranked No.1 on this list ahead of Vienna and Vancouver, with Adelaide No.6 and Perth No.7.
Melbourne and Victoria continue to lead the nation on population growth, with a 2.07% increase in FY2016, ahead of New South Wales with 1.39% and Queensland with 1.35%.
But Melbourne has not delivered house price growth as high as Sydney’s over the past 3-4 years because it has not matched Sydney’s infrastructure spend or its overall economic performance.
Melbourne does, however, have some big-ticket projects in planning, including the Melbourne Metro Rail Project and the North East link road project. Both are expected to cost over $10 billion.
Brisbane has many factors in its favour but spending on infrastructure has largely ground to a halt and economic performance has been lukewarm.
Part of the problem is a state government suffering from paralysis by analysis. It was reported recently that the Queensland Government has initiated 120 reviews and inquiries since winning office in January 2015, with the under Anna Palaszczuk dubbed the “do-nothing Premier”.
What is starkly absent is clear decision-making and, in particular, much-needed spending on infrastructure.
This is hope that this will change. Brisbane is awaiting a start on eight significant projects, which entail investment totalling over $12 billion. They include inner-city rail projects, highway upgrades, big spending at Brisbane Airport and major tourism-focused inner-city developments such as the $3 billion Queens Wharf Casino and the $800 million Brisbane Quarter project.
 Terry Ryder is the founder of <a href="https://www.hotspotting.com.au/" target="_blank">hotspotting.com.au</a>. You can <a href="https://mailto:ryder@hotspotting.com.au" target="_blank">email him</a> or follow him on <a href="https://twitter.com/hotspotting" target="_blank">Twitter.</a>
</body></html>

terryryder-YECXbqmri2

The three key factors behind Sydney's price boom

<html><body>
GUEST Observation
Our governments are <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-just-started-well-need-war-bonds-and-stimulus-on-a-scale-not-seen-in-our-lifetimes-137155" target="_blank">committing taxpayers to further debt</a> as part of a planned recovery from the economic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. Infrastructure spending is great for economic stimulus, but it has to be the right kind of infrastructure.
These are some of our largest public investments, so we want this public money to work a lot harder to create multiple rather than just singular benefits. As well as quickly providing jobs and the economic benefits of solving the problems of transport or energy supply, stimulus projects need to deliver broad, long-term community value, <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-coronavirus-widens-the-renter-owner-divide-housing-policies-will-have-to-change-135808" target="_blank">reduce inequality</a> and help <a href="https://theconversation.com/sorry-to-disappoint-climate-deniers-but-coronavirus-makes-the-low-carbon-transition-more-urgent-135419" target="_blank">counter climate change</a>.
The focus of <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/scott-morrison-flags-company-tax-cuts-ir-reform-as-key-to-covid-19-economic-recovery-20200417-p54kvq" target="_blank">fast-tracked infrastructure spending</a> in the pandemic recovery should be many smaller-scale projects that provide these broader benefits. Hence these projects will provide greater value than the <a href="https://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/" target="_blank">transport mega-projects</a> that had already been <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-to-inject-economic-stimulus-by-accelerating-infrastructure-spend-127358" target="_blank">proposed for economic stimulus</a>.
For example, the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-backs-economic-game-changer-high-speed-rail-as-part-of-pandemic-recovery-20200418-p54l24" target="_blank">high-speed rail project</a> Labor has proposed will help decarbonise travel, but it won’t provide enough jobs in the short or medium term. Major road projects will cut commuting time for some drivers, but won’t provide widespread benefits or longer-term employment. New roads also increase emissions and often damage neighbourhoods.
<h2>Good infrastructure delivers broad benefits</h2>
Infrastructure projects are such significant economic engines they can incorporate community improvement without compromising their other outcomes.
The ways in which projects get planned and implemented hold the key. For example, projects should involve local businesses, give hiring preference to long-term unemployed people and use sustainable materials.
Infrastructure planning can integrate multiple functions. For example, water-management infrastructure (for drainage or flooding) can be designed to include open space, tree cover, recreation and cycleways. Streets can be designed as beautiful public spaces that include pedestrians, cyclists and cars, as well as tree canopy and water storage.
Good infrastructure used for employment creation and economic recovery looks like <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/New-Deal" target="_blank">Roosevelt’s New Deal</a> of the 1930s. These programs created a legacy of high-quality public infrastructure across the United States.
A “Green New Deal” approach in Australia could focus on smaller-scale projects, including:
<ul>
<li>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/physical-distancing-is-here-for-a-while-over-100-experts-call-for-more-safe-walking-and-cycling-space-137374" target="_blank">infrastructure to promote walking and cycling</a>
</li>
<li>
tree planting to <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-solution-to-cut-extreme-heat-by-up-to-6-degrees-is-in-our-own-backyards-133082" target="_blank">reduce heat and store carbon</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/drought-fire-and-flood-how-outer-urban-areas-can-manage-the-emergency-while-reducing-future-risks-131560" target="_blank">land-management strategies to reduce fire and flood risks</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-and-the-economy-we-need-green-stimulus-not-fossil-fuel-bailouts-133492" target="_blank">renewable energy infrastructure</a> of all kinds
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-dont-know-what-weve-got-till-its-gone-we-must-reclaim-public-space-lost-to-the-coronavirus-crisis-135817" target="_blank">improvements to public open spaces</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-focus-of-stimulus-plans-has-to-be-construction-that-puts-social-housing-first-136519" target="_blank">retrofitting and enhancing schools</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://www.greenway.org.au/" target="_blank">multipurpose greenways</a>.
</li>
</ul>
This greenway traverses Sydney’s Inner West municipality.
These types of projects are fast to get going and labour-intensive. They can be implemented in both cities and regional areas. These projects can also build longer-term employment capacity and help with the transition of workers out of fossil fuel industry jobs.
<h2>Bigger isn’t necessarily better</h2>
The largest infrastructure projects, like those being proposed, are the riskiest in terms of <a href="https://theconversation.com/spectacular-cost-blowouts-show-need-to-keep-governments-honest-on-transport-66394" target="_blank">cost blowouts</a> and often deliver limited social and environmental value. In many instances their <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.jstor.org/stable/23607068?seq=1" target="_blank">claimed economic value is also doubtful</a>, as their costs are modelled inaccurately and their benefits and use are often vastly exaggerated.
One cause of cost blowouts is that governments are often reluctant to commit to spending in the early stages of major projects. This means commitments are often <a href="https://theconversation.com/missing-evidence-base-for-big-calls-on-infrastructure-costs-us-all-99080" target="_blank">made before projects are well enough understood</a>. Early spending to explore alternatives, understand impacts and consult widely can often <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2009.00606.x" target="_blank">realise projects more quickly and with more predictable outcomes</a> that better serve the public interest.
The Morrison government is promoting the myth of fast-tracking through the cutting of <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-25/coronavirus-eeconomy-reforms-usual-suspects/12182786" target="_blank">red tape</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/23/coalition-is-aiming-to-change-australias-environment-laws-before-review-is-finished" target="_blank">green tape</a>. This is not the key to faster project delivery. We have a decent system of development regulation, which attempts to balance the business interests of developers against the public good. The current crisis has illustrated very clearly the importance of the public values of <a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-reminds-us-how-liveable-neighbourhoods-matter-for-our-well-being-135806" target="_blank">liveability</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-major-scorecard-gives-the-health-of-australias-environment-less-than-1-out-of-10-133444" target="_blank">preserving natural resources</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/physical-distancing-is-here-for-a-while-over-100-experts-call-for-more-safe-walking-and-cycling-space-137374" target="_blank">easy access to open space and local centres</a>.
We must hold all our infrastructure projects to higher standards. Robust planning and <a href="https://theconversation.com/cutting-green-tape-may-be-good-politicking-but-its-bad-policy-here-are-5-examples-of-regulation-failure-137164" target="_blank">environmental regulation are crucial</a> to maximise the public benefit of projects. Effective <a href="https://theconversation.com/sidelining-citizens-when-deciding-on-transport-projects-is-asking-for-trouble-92840" target="_blank">community engagement ultimately leads to smoother implementation</a> and better outcomes. Projects that work within planning regulations <a href="https://www.thefifthestate.com.au/urbanism/planning/fast-tracking-development-in-nsw-genuine-reform-or-rent-seeker-give-away/?ct=t%2821+april+2020%29" target="_blank">move more swiftly into implementation</a> than projects that try to bypass them.
In this pandemic crisis we have seen governments move fast and effectively to change policy and implement large-scale programs to benefit the community. The economic rebuilding forced on us by the pandemic is an opportunity to show the same agility to rethink our approach to infrastructure as an engine to uplift our communities and improve life for all citizens.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/136838/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/elizabeth-mossop-1040691" target="_blank">Elizabeth Mossop</a>, Dean of Design, Architecture and Building, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936" target="_blank">University of Technology Sydney</a>
This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-pm-wants-to-fast-track-mega-projects-for-pandemic-recovery-heres-why-thats-a-bad-idea-136838" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

The PM wants to fast-track mega-projects for pandemic recovery. Here's why that’s a bad idea

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
An Infrastructure Accord is needed to drive the next wave of investment needed to keep pace with a growing list of national priority projects, according to the Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA).
UDIA National – the nation’s peak organisation for the urban development industry - has welcomed release of Infrastructure Australia’s latest Infrastructure Priority List. The expanded list of projects shows there is clear demand for investment in road, water, energy, educational and social infrastructure.
What’s clear is that Australia is already investing heavily in infrastructure but will need to accelerate that as our cities and population continue to grow.
There is a compelling case for bringing more discipline to the way we plan, fund and deliver the next generation of infrastructure projects across our cities and regions.
We need to go further and lift infrastructure above the political fray and ensure the durability of decisions to give comfort to investors – both in infrastructure, but also the land use and housing supply that follows.
A bi-partisan Infrastructure Accord would help insulate the identification, funding and delivery of major projects from politics and see the Priority List as the baseline for decisions on prioritisation.
It could be extended to ensure all projects include analysis of the associated land use and housing opportunities to maximise the dividend from investments made by government and the private sector.
If governments want to step outside the Priority List, they can do so – but they first need to submit the projects to Infrastructure Australia for full business case assessment.
UDIA National also urges governments to properly scrutinise the trunk infrastructure needs of housing development opportunities that emerge from the list, particularly transport projects.
This would ensure we can create a more robust pipeline of new and diversified housing stock to keep pace with population growth and demographic demands.
CONNIE KIRK is the UDIA National Executive Director
</body></html>

Infrastructure accord needed to drive investment: UDIA's Connie Kirk

<html><body>
Demolition of the old bridge on the June 2019 Queen's Birthday long weekend which connected The Northern Road across the M4 Motorway at Orchard Hills is now complete, with around 6,000 tonnes of concrete and steel removed.
Around 60 workers did the job across the long weekend to demolish an old bridge across one of the busiest motorways in Sydney.
Minister for Roads Andrew Constance said crews are packing up demolition equipment and temporary protection measures across the M4 to reopen the motorway to traffic before Tuesday’s morning peak.
“Demolishing the old bridge in three days, rather than the alternative of up to 20 weeks of night closures, has minimised disruption to both motorists and residents and improved safety for workers.”
“The old bridge was more than 40 years old and needed to be removed as it no longer had the capacity to meet the future traffic needs of Western Sydney.
Constance said a range of equipment was used to demolish the old bridge including cranes, excavators, trucks, hand tools and pulverisers.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/6/11/Bridge-demo.jpg" alt="">
The bridge demolition by excavators with claw-like attachments removed the deck and piers in around 36 hour. 
The material removed from the old bridge has been transported to stockpile areas and will be recycled for use on the remainder of The Northern Road upgrade between Glenmore Parkway and Jamison Road.
The Northern Road upgrade between The Old Northern Road and Jamison Road will provide increased road capacity for expected future growth and development when complete in 2022.
The Federal Government has committed $1.2 billion to the $1.6 billion The Northern Road Upgrade, with the NSW Government committing $400 million.
</body></html>

The Northern Road upgrade see Orchard Hills bridge replacement over Queen's Birthday long weekend

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The appointment of Alan Tudge, Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure and Michael Sukkar, Minister for Housing, in the Morrison Ministry are important roles for the growth of Australia’s cities. 
Both Minister Tudge and Minister Sukkar have demonstrated excellent leadership in the areas of cities and housing over previous years so we welcome their continuing in these important roles.
Clearly housing supply is at a critical stage in Australia due to falling prices and slowing housing approvals yet our population growth is significant. 
The election of the Morrison government has already returned some confidence to the housing industry and it is important that this continues.” 
The actions by the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) to reduce the constraints on housing loans has been positive, as has suggestions by the Reserve Bank of Australia that interest rates could be reduced. These signals have led to some green shoots appearing in the housing industry.
One of the major changes happening in relation to housing in Australian cities is a big swing to apartment living, which is more affordable than house living. Apartments are also often well located in relation to public transport and to access to jobs and shared amenities. 
But some in the community have expressed concern at this change to the character of our cities. 
To support the swing to apartment living, the Urban Taskforce has instigated a campaign titled Welcome Home which champions those people living the more urban apartment living style.
The Urban Taskforce is keen to work closely with the Morrison Government on broad planning issues and particularly on policies related to the supply of new housing.
CHRIS JOHNSON is the Urban Taskforce CEO
 
<div>
<div id="cpgAdsenseContainerId"><ins id="aswift_0_expand" data-ad-slot="3195360564"></ins></div>
</div>
 
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

Ministers for cities and housing crucial roles in the Scott Morrison government

<html><body>
<div>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
Engineering construction work done rose by 2.8 per cent in the March quarter to stand 13.7 per cent higher than a year ago. A month ago, it was estimated that engineering construction was up by 1.5 per cent in the quarter.
Engineering work done for the public sector rose by 6.3 per cent in the March quarter. Over the year to March, a record $35.8 billion of work was done for the public sector.
Excluding resources, engineering work yet to be done stands at $44.2 billion, just below record highs. Outstanding road and railway work are both at record highs.
The data on engineering construction work is important for builders, building material companies, professional services, developers, government businesses and other dependent sectors and industries.
</div>
<div class="x_WordSection2">
<h1>What does it all mean?</h1>
Those about to hit the road in the coming school holidays may need to add extra to expected travel times. A record amount of roadwork is evident across the country. Those affected by the delays will clearly be getting up close and personal with Australia’s infrastructure boom.
Click here <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2018/6/28/roadwork.jpg" target="_blank">to enlarge.</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/6/28/roadwork.jpg" alt="">
The first construction boom was driven by the resource sector – with more mining and energy capacity created to meet global demand, especially China. The new construction boom is not mines or oil platforms but roads, railways, dams and electricity generation and distribution facilities.
And the centre of activity is no longer Western Australia, Northern Territory and northern Queensland, but rather the growing population centres of south-east Australia.
With so much construction underway – homes, commercial building and infrastructure, stresses are appearing, particularly the ability to attract and retain the necessary skilled staff. And clearly all the necessary staff aren’t available in Australia – more workers will be needed from overseas, creating fresh momentum for the economy.
Click here <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2018/6/28/VIC-INF.jpg" target="_blank">to enlarge.</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/6/28/VIC-INF.jpg" alt="">
Anecdotal evidence of wage pressures in the construction industries is expected to become more widespread. The question is to what extent any spill-over effects will be evidenced in other sectors.
Those on the east coast probably never understood the “mining boom” of around a decade ago. But the building of roads, airports and railways will be more recognisable for those in capital cities.
<h1>What do the figures show? </h1>
Engineering construction work done rose by 2.8 per cent in real (inflation-adjusted) terms in the March quarter – the fourth gain in five quarters. Work done is up 13.7 per cent on a year ago. Previously, engineering work was reported as rising by 1.5 per cent in the March quarter to be 10.3 per cent higher over the year.
Value of work completed for the public sector rose by 6.3 per cent in the quarter whileprivate sector activity rose by 0.6 per cent.
Over the year to March a record $35.8 billion of infrastructure work was completed(engineering work for the public sector.)
Construction work rose in six of the states and territories in the March quarter: NSW (up 5.6 per cent); Victoria (up 19.2 per cent); Queensland (up 9.5 per cent); South Australia (up 6.0 per cent); Western Australia (down 11.7 per cent); Tasmania (up 8.6 per cent); Northern Territory (down 13.3 per cent); ACT (up 13.8 per cent).
Work yet to be done: There was $59.2 billion of engineering work yet to be done as at March 2018, up from $49.2 billion in the previous quarter. Excluding the resource sector (coal, oil, pipelines etc.) work to be done stands at $44.2 billion, just below the record high of $43 billion in December 2012.
As at March 2018 a record $20 billion of work was to be completed on roads and highways and a record $11.7 billion of railways.
Click here <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2018/6/28/NEW-BOOM.jpg" target="_blank">to enlarge.</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/6/28/NEW-BOOM.jpg" alt="">
In original terms, engineering work commenced in the March quarter was $29.2 billion – the most in 5½ years – and up 66.2 per cent in the quarter. Almost $90 billion of engineering work was started in the past year.
<h1>What is the importance of the economic data?</h1>
The Bureau of Statistics releases quarterly estimates of Engineering construction activity.The estimates include value of engineering construction work done, commenced and yet to be done, classified by state or territory, commodity (roads, bridges, pipelines etc.), sector (public/private) undertaking the work, and sector for whom the work is being done. The data is a comprehensive assessment of the infrastructure pipeline.
<h1>What are the implications for interest rates and investors?</h1>
Construction-dependent companies have plenty of work. The work may not be local, but it exists for those builders, tradespeople and construction firms willing to travel. Victorian engineering work is at record highs and NSW construction was just off the highs in the March quarter. And then there is a host of other engineering projects across the nation.
Demand for labour and materials in construction and construction-related sectors will increase over the coming year. It’s worth noting that state and federal governments have since added to the infrastructure workload after delivering budgets in the past two months.
CommSec expects official interest rates to remain stable until early 2019.
Craig James is the chief economist at <a href="https://www.comsec.com.au/default.aspx" target="_blank">CommSec</a>. 
</div>
</body></html>

cjames-5S2v74qSNK

Shift of infrastructure boom to growing south-east Australia: CommSec

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
When we think about infrastructure it’s most often about bridges or roads – or, as in this week’s federal government AU$1.9 billion <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/government-response-2016-national-research-infrastructure-roadmap" target="_blank">National Research Infrastructure announcement</a>, big science projects. These are large assets that can be seen and applied in a tangible way.
It’s not hard to get excited over <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/funded-research-infrastructure-projects" target="_blank">money that will support</a> imaging of the Earth, or the <a href="https://www.ala.org.au/" target="_blank">Atlas of Living Australia</a>.
But important as these projects are, there’s a whole set of infrastructure that rarely gets mentioned or noticed: “soft” infrastructure. These are the services, policies or practices that keep academic research working and, now, open.
Soft infrastructure was not featured in this week’s announcement linked to budget 2018.
Ignored infrastructure
An absence of attention paid to soft infrastructure isn’t just the case in Australia, it’s true globally. This is despite the fact that such infrastructure is core to running the hard infrastructure projects.
For example, the <a href="https://www.openssl.org/" target="_blank">Open SSL software library</a> – which is key to the security of <a href="https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/OpenSSL" target="_blank">most websites</a> – has just a handful of paid individuals who work on it. It’s supported by fragile <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://figshare.com/articles/Software_in_Research_Underappreciated_and_Underrewarded/5518933/1" target="_blank">finances</a>. That’s a pretty frightening thought. (There’s another issue in that researchers doing this work get no academic credit for their efforts, but that’s a topic for another time.)
There are other high profile, globally used, open science infrastructures that also exist hand to mouth. The <a href="https://doaj.org/" target="_blank">Directory of Open Access journals</a> which began at Lund University relies entirely on voluntary donations from supporting members and on occasional sponsorship.
Similarly, <a href="http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php" target="_blank">Sherpa Romeo</a> – the open database of publishers’ policies on copyright and self-archiving – came out of projects at Nottingham and Loughborough Universities in the UK.
In some ways these projects’ high visibility is part of their problem. It’s assumed that they are already funded, so no-one takes responsibility for funding them themselves – the dilemma of collective action.
Supporting open science
Other even more nebulous types of soft infrastructure include the development and oversight of standards that support open science. One example of this is the need to ensure that the metadata (the essential descriptors that tell you for example where a sample that’s collected for research came from and when, or how it relates to a wider research project or publication) are consistent. Without consistency of metadata, searching for research, making it openly available or linking it together is much less efficient, if not impossible.
Of course there are practices in place at individual institutions as well as national organisations. The soon-to-be-combined organisations -Australian National Data Service, the National eResearch Collaboration Tools and Resources project and Research Data Services (<a href="https://www.ands-nectar-rds.org.au/" target="_blank">ANDS-Nectar-RDS</a>) - are supported by national infrastructure funding. These provide support for data-heavy research (including for example the adoption of <a href="https://www.force11.org/group/fairgroup/fairprinciples" target="_blank">FAIR</a> - Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable standards for data).
But without coherent national funding and coordination, specifically for open science initiatives, we won’t get full value from the physical infrastructure just funded.
What we need
What’s needed now? First, a specific recognition of the need for cash to support this open, soft infrastructure. There are a couple of models for this.
In an article last year it was suggested that libraries (but this could equally be funders – public or philanthropic) should be committing around <a href="http://intheopen.net/2017/09/join-the-movement-the-2-5-commitment/" target="_blank">2.5% of their budget</a> to support open initiatives. There are some international initiatives that are developing specific funding models - <a href="http://scoss.org/" target="_blank">SCOSS</a> for Open Science Services and <a href="https://www.numfocus.org" target="_blank">NumFocus</a> for software.
But funding on its own is not enough: we need a coordinated national approach to open scholarship – making research available for all to access through structures and tools that are themselves open and not proprietary.
Though there are groups that are actively pushing forward initiatives on open scholarship in Australia – such as the <a href="https://aoasg.org.au/" target="_blank">Australasian Open Access Strategy Group</a>, the <a href="http://www.caul.edu.au/" target="_blank">Council of Australian University Librarians</a>, and the <a href="https://acola.org.au/" target="_blank">Learned Academies</a> as well as the <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/arc-open-access-policy" target="_blank">ARC</a> and <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants-funding/policy/nhmrc-open-access-policy" target="_blank">NHMRC</a> who have open access policies - there is no one organisation with the responsibility to drive change across the sector. The end result is inadequate key infrastructure - for example, for interoperability between research output repositories.
We also need coherent policy. The government recognised a need for national and states policies on open access in its response to the <a href="https://www.communications.gov.au/departmental-news/government-response-productivity-commissions-intellectual-property-report" target="_blank">2016 Productivity Commission Inquiry on Intellectual Property</a>, but as yet no policy has appeared.
It’s reasonable to ask whether in the absence of a national body that’s responsible for developing and implementing an overall approach, what the success of a policy on its own would be. Again, there are international models that could be used.
Sweden has a Government Directive on Open Access, and a <a href="http://www.kb.se/dokument/open%20access/OpenAccess_National_Library_Sweden_2017_2019.pdf" target="_blank">National Body for Coordinating Open Access</a> chaired by the Vice-chancellor of Stockholm University.
The Netherlands has a <a href="https://www.neth-er.eu/en/news/Netherlands-Publishes-National-Plan-Open-Science" target="_blank">National Plan for Open Science</a> with wide engagement, supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. In that country, the Secretary of State, Sander Dekker, has been a key champion.
The EU has had a long commitment to open science, underscored recently by the appointment of a high-level envoy with specific responsibility for open science, <a href="https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/open-access-scientific-publications-must-become-reality-2020-robert-jan-smits_en" target="_blank">Robert-Jan Smits</a>.
Private interests might take over
Here’s the bottom line: national coordinated support for the soft infrastructure that supports open science (and thus the big tangible infrastructure projects announced) is not just a “nice to have”.
One way or another, this soft infrastructure will get built and adopted. If it’s not done in the national interest, for-profit companies will step into the vacuum.
We risk replicating the same issues we have now in academic publishing - which is in the hands of multi-billion dollar companies that report to their shareholders, not the public. It’s clear how well that is <a href="https://theconversation.com/publisher-pushback-puts-open-access-in-peril-42050" target="_blank">turning out</a> – publishers and universities globally are in <a href="https://sparcopen.org/our-work/big-deal-cancellation-tracking/" target="_blank">stand offs</a> over the cost of publishing services, which continue to rise inexorably, year on year.
Virginia Barbour<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/virginia-barbour-170992" target="_blank"></a>, Director, Australasian Open Access Strategy Group, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/queensland-university-of-technology-847" target="_blank">Queensland University of Technology</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-was-missing-in-australias-1-9-billion-infrastructure-announcement-96723" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Australia's $1.9 billion infrastructure announcement - what was missing?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Infrastructure Australia’s latest infrastructure priority list has been criticised for being “too Sydney-centric” and for giving Melbourne’s East West Link, cancelled in 2014, “high priority” status. The cancelled Roe 8 project in Perth was removed from the list.
So how does a project get onto Infrastructure Australia’s list? This requires submission of a full business case, which then needs to be “positively assessed” to be given priority status.
But our research, yet to be published, has found these business cases leave out highly significant costs. This article looks at three prominent projects – the WestConnex and East West Link motorways in Sydney and Melbourne respectively, and Cross River Rail in Brisbane – to illustrate how business cases submitted to Infrastructure Australia do not follow its requirements in key respects. This casts serious doubt on the business cases used to justify major motorway projects, as well as on how priority projects are selected.
What do business cases assess?
Ensuring business cases are completed before investment decisions are finalised is critical to “good planning”. Part of Infrastructure Australia’s remit is to head off concerns that projects are committed to before business cases are fully evaluated. This can help minimise “optimism bias” and ensure investments deliver community benefit.
But we must also examine what the business case is actually showing us. The main part of each business case is the cost-benefit analysis. This compares the money value of project benefits and project costs. Economically viable projects should have a benefit-to-cost ratio above 1:1.
Infrastructure Australia requires project business cases to consider non-monetised benefits and costs, including community impacts. These benefits and costs are required to be quantified in some other way, or at least described. The basis used to estimate “external costs” must also be provided.
The cost-benefit methodology requires any significant positive or negative impacts on third parties – externalities – to be included. Examples include air quality, carbon emissions, noise, biodiversity and climate adaptation.
Social impacts to be covered include equity or the distribution of benefits (which Infrastructure Australia says need to be identified since cost-benefit analysis does not explicitly take these into account), and affected local communities and other individuals/groups. The non-monetised benefit and cost categories listed as relevant are: social impacts, cultural impacts, visual amenity/landscape, biodiversity and heritage impacts.
In support of monetary estimates, proponents must “describe and provide supporting material that demonstrates how land use, population and employment projections are modelled”.
The guidelines stress that the supporting conditions for expected land use impacts will be in place – for instance, necessary infrastructure investment where densification is assumed. Factors that can hinder the realisation of such benefits (such as local opposition to increasing density) must also be included.
This process would seem to produce a rational prioritisation of national infrastructure projects. The problem is that the business cases submitted to Infrastructure Australia do not follow its requirements.
High-priority projects with problematic business cases
To illustrate this, we analysed the business cases of three projects designated as “high priority” for Commonwealth funding:
<ul>
<li>
East West Link, to which the Commonwealth allocated A$1.5 billion before the new Victorian government cancelled the project
</li>
<li>
WestConnex, which has been allocated A$3.5 billion
</li>
<li>
Cross River Rail, which is yet to receive funding.
</li>
</ul>
A key problem in these business cases is that significant project cost items have not been monetised. These include costs relating to environmental effects such as noise and visual amenity and to other impacts on businesses, households and property values.
For example, none of the three cases includes a valuation of the costs of lost business and disruption to household travel and amenity during construction. (This is a big issue with Sydney’s southeast light rail project.)
There is also no costing of the loss of property values along motorways, especially around exhaust emission vents. The East West Link and Cross River Rail business cases make some allowance for this by including the value of general changes in amenity from noise, urban landscape and visual amenity. None of these are costed in the WestConnex case.
Another significant omission relates to the costing of land use impacts. The WestConnex and East West Link business cases both forecast more, and longer, road trips across the network as a result of the projects.
The WestConnex scheme will increase vehicle kilometres by 600,000 per day and make outer suburbs more accessible relative to the inner city. The potential extra costs from greater sprawl are high, estimated at A$4.99 billion for Sydney over 25 years from 2011 if greenfield housing was 50% of new dwellings rather than 30%.
The opposite is the case for Cross River Rail. Increased higher-density development around rail stations would produce infrastructure savings, but the business case does not give these a value.
Furthermore, the valuation of changes in transport mode resulting from each project is inconsistent.
The Cross River Rail business case includes savings resulting from motorists switching from road to rail after the line is built.
The WestConnex project will have the reverse effect, with 45,000 public transport trips per day being switched to the motorway. But the business case does not put a value on the costs of this. These include bus and train revenue losses, or reduced service frequency and increased waiting time to reduce losses.
Debatable ‘wider economic benefits’
The most contentious business case component is wider economic benefits. These are productivity improvements arising from increased central city job density as a result of the projects improving access.
These benefits needed to be included to lift the East West Link benefit-cost ratio above one. But this is only achieved through sleight of hand – public transport improvements into central Melbourne are included as part of the full project cost. As the public transport component of the business case had low costs compared to its benefits, including these wider economic benefits was enough to push the overall ratio above 1.
Similar benefits are part of the WestConnex cost-benefit analysis. However, these benefits are to be achieved from extra car trips to the centre. This takes no account of the disincentives of road congestion and lack of parking.
Current central Sydney planning controls allow a maximum of one new parking space per 75 square metres of floor area for not-so-tall offices - or one space for about five new workers - and even fewer spaces relative to floor area for higher buildings. This means most increased job density will not come from people driving to work.
By contrast, the wider economic benefits of the Cross River Rail resulting from increased job density in central Brisbane are not valued for inclusion in the cost-benefit analysis.
Rethinking the business case
Our work points to several real concerns:
<ul>
<li>a lack of consistency in what is included in business cases</li>
<li>questions about how cases can be reasonably compared across projects</li>
<li>discretionary inclusion or exclusion of critical items that bias results in favour of projects.</li>
</ul>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94489/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">We need more holistic and integrated analysis of projects. This will take into account not only the “nation-building” aspects – the jobs and growth projects might inspire – but also the disrupting and displacing effects they produce across transport modes, land uses and people’s experiences of the city.
Glen Searle, Honorary Associate Professor in Planning, University of Queensland and, University of Sydney
Crystal Legacy, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Melbourne
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-closer-look-at-business-cases-raises-questions-about-priority-national-infrastructure-projects-94489">original article</a>.
</body></html>

‘Priority’ national infrastructure projects have questionable business cases

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
The recent announcement by the NSW leader of the Opposition that Metro West rail will be preferred over other lines misses the point that the full network for Sydney is required.
NSW Opposition Leader, Luke Foley, has announced that he will fast track the Metro West rail if elected at the state election and cancel the Sydenham to Bankstown rail line.
But Sydney needs both rail links as part of a broader infrastructure network for the city.
As Sydney moves from a city of five million people to eight million over the next 40 years the city will need to shift to public transport with greater housing densities around railway stations.
Ultimately the city will need a metro rail network similar to London’s with a circle line and a central line.
The Urban Taskforce has proposed a structure for Sydney’s metro based on a central line that requires West Metro as an important link but we have also proposed a circle line that carries the North West rail through North Sydney and along the Sydenham to Bankstown line ultimately to the proposed Western Sydney airport.
Clearly there will need to be greater densities around railway stations on this network and it is unhelpful for the Opposition Leader to call this ‘shoehorning an extra 100,000 people into high-rise towers’.
The Metro West link is probably more important than the Sydenham to Bankstown line in the short term as the current western rail line is approaching capacity.
It is positive that the Opposition is committed to this important piece of infrastructure.
The Urban Taskforce encourages all political parties to support new metro rail infrastructure in the lead up to the next state election but we are very concerned about rhetoric from both major parties that is against the development of apartments near transport modes.
Chris Johnson is the chief executive office of the Urban Taskforce.
</body></html>

cjohnson-8xfqfuuCSq

Sydney rail projects need to meet broader infrastructure needs: Chris Johnson 

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
The announcement by the NSW Government that four transport corridors are now on exhibition that will underpin Sydney's third city, the Parkland City, is good news.
Infrastructure is the key to accommodating Sydney's growth and the announcement that the NSW Government has identified four transport corridors for the Western City is a good step forward.
The four corridors total 192 kilometres of land reservations that link Western Sydney to the north, south, east and west.
The North South rail corridor will ultimately connect Campbelltown, Western Sydney Airport and the main Western rail line at St Marys. The Outer Sydney Orbital is a vital future ring road and rail freight corridor to Sydney's west.
The Western Sydney Freight Connection will connect to the broader network and the extensive new road connection from Bells Line of Road in the west to the M7 will connect the Blue Mountains more strongly to the road network.
All of these proposed corridors reinforce the City Deal across three levels of government and give momentum to the important development of Western Sydney around the proposed airport.
It is also important to reserve land corridors early in the planning process before prices escalate and this seems to be the case with the four corridors announced.
While these corridors have been announced, the NSW Government is still keen to get community and industry feedback on the alignments. The Urban Taskforce will look closely at the corridors and consultant with our members to provide constructive feedback.
Ministers Pavey and Ayres are demonstrating good leadership in making clear proposals for necessary infrastructure to underpin the future growth of Western Sydney.
Chris Johnson is chief executive officer of property development industry group Urban Taskforce and can be contacted <a href="https://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=97&amp;Itemid=126#.Vdaart55dFI" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Infrastructure Development

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Infrastructure Development

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News